Estate of Jorgensen v. Comm'r
2009 T.C. Memo. 66, 97 T.C.M. 1328, 2009 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 73 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Assets transferred to a family limited partnership will be included in a decedent's gross estate under Section 2036(a) if the transfer was not a bona fide sale for adequate and full consideration and the decedent retained an implied right to the possession, enjoyment, or income from the transferred property. Additionally, the Tax Court may apply the doctrine of equitable recoupment to allow an estate to offset a deficiency with time-barred income tax overpayments arising from the same transaction and inconsistently taxed, where there is sufficient identity of interest between the taxpayers.
Facts:
- Erma V. Jorgensen (Ms. Jorgensen) relied on her husband, Colonel Jorgensen, for financial matters, and she was not involved in investment decisions.
- In 1995, Colonel Jorgensen, in consultation with his attorney, decided to form the Jorgensen Management Association (JMA-I), a family limited partnership; Ms. Jorgensen and her children were not involved in these discussions.
- On June 30, 1995, Colonel and Ms. Jorgensen each contributed marketable securities to JMA-I in exchange for 50-percent limited partnership interests, while their children, Gerald and Jerry Lou, became general partners and received initial interests by gift along with their children.
- Colonel Jorgensen died on November 12, 1996, and shortly thereafter, Ms. Jorgensen’s estate planner recommended she transfer her remaining brokerage accounts to JMA-I, explicitly stating the purpose was to qualify for a significant estate tax discount.
- On July 1, 1997, based on discussions between her children and the family attorney, JMA-II was formed, and Ms. Jorgensen contributed $1,861,116 in marketable securities and other assets to JMA-II, eventually holding a 79.6947-percent interest.
- Ms. Jorgensen frequently used partnership funds for personal expenses, including large cash gifts to family members and her own estimated federal and state taxes, and she used her personal funds to pay some partnership expenses.
- In July 1999, Gerald (Ms. Jorgensen's son and a general partner) borrowed $125,000 from JMA-II to purchase a home, but he made no payments on the loan for two years, and it was only fully repaid after Ms. Jorgensen’s death, when advised it would make the partnership “look very legit.”
- After Ms. Jorgensen’s death on April 25, 2002, JMA-I and JMA-II sold certain assets (stocks Ms. Jorgensen had contributed) in 2003 through 2006, and the partners (her children and grandchildren) reported capital gains using Ms. Jorgensen’s original cost basis for the assets.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined a $796,954 Federal estate tax deficiency against the Estate of Erma V. Jorgensen.
- The Estate of Erma V. Jorgensen, acting through its executrix Jerry Lou Davis and co-trustees Jerry Lou Davis and Gerald R. Jorgensen, Jr., filed a petition with the United States Tax Court challenging the deficiency.
- Between April 6 and 9, 2008, the JMA-I and JMA-II partners (Ms. Jorgensen's children and grandchildren) submitted untimely protective claims for refund of 2003 income taxes paid on the sale of assets Ms. Jorgensen had contributed to the partnerships.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Section 2036(a) include in the gross estate the value of assets Ms. Jorgensen transferred to two family limited partnerships when the transfers lacked a legitimate and significant nontax reason and she retained an implied agreement for possession or enjoyment? And, if so, is the estate entitled to equitable recoupment for income taxes overpaid by the partnership partners on the sale of those assets where the income tax refund claims are time-barred?
Opinions:
Majority - Haines, Judge
Yes, the values of assets Ms. Jorgensen transferred to JMA-I and JMA-II are included in her gross estate under Section 2036(a)(1). The court concluded that the transfers were not bona fide sales for adequate and full consideration because Ms. Jorgensen and her family lacked a legitimate and significant nontax reason for creating and funding the partnerships. The stated reasons, such as management succession, financial education, family unity, perpetuation of investment philosophy, pooling of assets, and spendthrift concerns, were found to be either theoretical, unconvincing, or undermined by the actual conduct of the parties. For instance, the partnerships held a largely untraded portfolio of marketable securities, not requiring active management beyond what existing trusts or powers of attorney could provide. Furthermore, the court found significant evidence that tax savings were the primary motivation, especially for JMA-II, as indicated by contemporaneous documents from Ms. Jorgensen’s estate planner explicitly discussing estate tax discounts. The transactions were not at arm’s length, as Ms. Jorgensen stood on both sides of the transfers, and the partnerships consistently disregarded formalities, including commingling funds and Ms. Jorgensen’s use of partnership assets for personal expenses and gift-giving. This disregard of formalities and financial dependence on partnership assets, along with the subsequent use of partnership funds to pay Ms. Jorgensen’s estate obligations, demonstrated an implied agreement that she would retain the economic benefits of the transferred property. Additionally, the dual roles of Gerald and Jerry Lou as general partners and co-trustees of Ms. Jorgensen’s revocable trust, with duties to administer for her sole benefit, further established her retained use and enjoyment of the assets. Yes, the estate is entitled to equitable recoupment for the 2003 income taxes overpaid by Ms. Jorgensen's children and grandchildren (the JMA-I and JMA-II partners). The court found all four elements for equitable recoupment were met. First, the 2003 income tax refund claims by the partners were time-barred. Second, the overpayment arose from a single item: the stock contributed by Ms. Jorgensen to the partnerships and subsequently sold in 2003. Third, this single item was inconsistently subjected to two taxes because the inclusion of the stock in Ms. Jorgensen’s gross estate under Section 2036(a) necessitates a basis step-up under Section 1014(a), which would reduce the capital gains reported by the partners, thereby demonstrating an overpayment of income tax. Fourth, there was a sufficient identity of interest between Ms. Jorgensen's estate and her children and grandchildren. The court reasoned that given the implied agreement of Ms. Jorgensen’s retained control over the assets and the testamentary goal of her gift program, it would be inequitable for the assets to be included in her gross estate while her beneficiaries could not recover the income taxes they overpaid on those same assets due to the erroneous initial basis.
Analysis:
This case strongly reiterates the Tax Court's and Ninth Circuit's stringent scrutiny of family limited partnerships used for estate tax reduction. It reinforces that a legitimate and significant nontax purpose must be an actual, demonstrable motivation, not merely a theoretical justification, especially for passive investment vehicles. The ruling highlights that disregard for partnership formalities, such as commingling of funds or using partnership assets for personal expenses, will lead to an implied retained interest under Section 2036(a), effectively rendering the transfer ineffective for estate tax purposes. Furthermore, the case demonstrates the Tax Court’s willingness to apply equitable recoupment to prevent inconsistent taxation of the same asset across different taxpayers and tax types, even when a statute of limitations has expired, provided a clear identity of interest exists.
